How about dropping "bombs" that are just spray neutralizing agents into the air?

When you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

How is releasing an antidote anything other than excellent solution to the problem of somebody using chemical weapons on folks?

As London Man pointed out, that might be feasible in a Hollywood blockbuster, but not in real life.

Well, obviously I mean if and when possible. SPC may, I suppose (and hope), have been criticizing whatever thought process led BRTD to think that particular process is feasible, but it's SPC. He may very well have a grave moral opposition to administering antidotes to citizens of other countries in violation of those countries' self-determination for all I know.

How about dropping "bombs" that are just spray neutralizing agents into the air?

When you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

How is releasing an antidote anything other than excellent solution to the problem of somebody using chemical weapons on folks?

As London Man pointed out, that might be feasible in a Hollywood blockbuster, but not in real life.

Well, obviously I mean if and when possible. SPC may, I suppose (and hope), have been criticizing whatever thought process led BRTD to think that particular process is feasible, but it's SPC. He may very well have a grave moral opposition to administering antidotes to citizens of other countries in violation of those countries' self-determination for all I know.

Obviously giving Syrians antidotes creates perverse market distortions. Better to force them to find and purchase their own antidotes.

With nerve agents, deploying antidotes is risky. If you give yourself the antidote because you think you've come in contact with one, but you haven't, then you can potentially kill yourself that way as well.

Logged

Quote from: Ignatius of Antioch

He that possesses the word of Jesus, is truly able to bear his very silence. — Epistle to the Ephesians 3:21a

With nerve agents, deploying antidotes is risky. If you give yourself the antidote because you think you've come in contact with one, but you haven't, then you can potentially kill yourself that way as well.

...that would in fact be a very good reason to have second thoughts about doing as BRTD suggested, were it possible. I stand at least partially corrected. Thank you, Ernest.

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama declared Syria’s main opposition group the sole “legitimate representative” of its country’s people Tuesday, deeming the move “a big step” in the international diplomatic efforts to end Syrian President Bashar Assad’s embattled regime.

Obama said the newly formed Syrian Opposition Council “is now inclusive enough” to be granted the elevated status, which paves the way for the greater U.S. support for the organization.

“Obviously, with that recognition comes responsibilities,” Obama said in an interview Tuesday with ABC News. “To make sure that they organize themselves effectively, that they are representative of all the parties, that they commit themselves to a political transition that respects women’s rights and minority rights.”

Recognition of the council as the sole representative of Syria’s diverse population brings the U.S. in line with Britain, France and several of America’s Arab allies, which took the same step shortly after the body was created at a meeting of opposition representatives in Qatar last month.

I have an inexplicable soft spot for Asma al-Assad. It's going to be horrible to see her and her children dragged around the streets. Syria's such a shame. Up until this whole thing started I really did think there was a chance at reform and opening up, that Assad could prove to a progressive moderniser, which his background certainly suggested. Now that's all a dead dream, along with thousands of Syrians.

I have an inexplicable soft spot for Asma al-Assad. It's going to be horrible to see her and her children dragged around the streets. Syria's such a shame. Up until this whole thing started I really did think there was a chance at reform and opening up, that Assad could prove to a progressive moderniser, which his background certainly suggested. Now that's all a dead dream, along with thousands of Syrians.

We in the West tend to overestimate how much one man can go in and change an already established regime. I think thats true of both North Korea and Syria. There are already a network of officers, cronies and other stakeholders around the throne that have a vested interest in the status quo and without their support the heir to the family dictatorship can change very little.

I would say that Assad did more that just let the status quo. If he had been that reform-minded, he could have taken advantage of the early stages of the Revolution to force gradual reforms. Instead, he has shown all his determination not to lose an inch of his power.

Logged

"In the end, the world we live in is in darkness.""That's why... we seek the light."

I would say that Assad did more that just let the status quo. If he had been that reform-minded, he could have taken advantage of the early stages of the Revolution to force gradual reforms. Instead, he has shown all his determination not to lose an inch of his power.

Giving in after a revolution has begun is a sure way of losing. There is basically only three options in that situation. Defeat the rebels, commit suicide or go into exile.

I would say that Assad did more that just let the status quo. If he had been that reform-minded, he could have taken advantage of the early stages of the Revolution to force gradual reforms. Instead, he has shown all his determination not to lose an inch of his power.

Giving in after a revolution has begun is a sure way of losing. There is basically only three options in that situation. Defeat the rebels, commit suicide or go into exile.

I am pretty sure that a large part of the population on both sides would have agreed to avoid the bloodshed if a compromise option had been on the table. Instead, Assad thought he could crush the rebellion and acted accordingly.

Logged

"In the end, the world we live in is in darkness.""That's why... we seek the light."

I would say that Assad did more that just let the status quo. If he had been that reform-minded, he could have taken advantage of the early stages of the Revolution to force gradual reforms. Instead, he has shown all his determination not to lose an inch of his power.

Giving in after a revolution has begun is a sure way of losing. There is basically only three options in that situation. Defeat the rebels, commit suicide or go into exile.

That's exactly what the leaders in Algeria and Morocco did. It worked okay for them. (Granted, I think we're assuming after protests start but before armed conflict began--you may be taking this to be after armed conflict had already started, in which case I agree.)

I would say that Assad did more that just let the status quo. If he had been that reform-minded, he could have taken advantage of the early stages of the Revolution to force gradual reforms. Instead, he has shown all his determination not to lose an inch of his power.

Giving in after a revolution has begun is a sure way of losing. There is basically only three options in that situation. Defeat the rebels, commit suicide or go into exile.

I am pretty sure that a large part of the population on both sides would have agreed to avoid the bloodshed if a compromise option had been on the table. Instead, Assad thought he could crush the rebellion and acted accordingly.

As Alexis de Tocqueville pointed out, a dictatorial regime is at its absolute weakest and most likely to be overthrown when it is attempting to reform. Easing restrictions on people makes them more confident and more likely to speak up about the other problems they face, and make demands that the process go faster. The easiest options are either conceding defeat and going into exile or going maximum hardline like Assad actually did: reform is something of a fool's errand that makes it more, not less, likely for a ruler to end up hanging from a telephone pole.

I would say that Assad did more that just let the status quo. If he had been that reform-minded, he could have taken advantage of the early stages of the Revolution to force gradual reforms. Instead, he has shown all his determination not to lose an inch of his power.

Giving in after a revolution has begun is a sure way of losing. There is basically only three options in that situation. Defeat the rebels, commit suicide or go into exile.

I am pretty sure that a large part of the population on both sides would have agreed to avoid the bloodshed if a compromise option had been on the table. Instead, Assad thought he could crush the rebellion and acted accordingly.

As Alexis de Tocqueville pointed out, a dictatorial regime is at its absolute weakest and most likely to be overthrown when it is attempting to reform. Easing restrictions on people makes them more confident and more likely to speak up about the other problems they face, and make demands that the process go faster. The easiest options are either conceding defeat and going into exile or going maximum hardline like Assad actually did: reform is something of a fool's errand that makes it more, not less, likely for a ruler to end up hanging from a telephone pole.

There is a lot of truth in this idea, but I don't think it's good to generalize too much. Negotiated political reforms might sometimes appease tensions and allow the regime to stabilize for a while (even though it might still eventually fall).

Logged

"In the end, the world we live in is in darkness.""That's why... we seek the light."

We have only gone into DEFCON-3 three times in our history, and once was because the Soviet Union was threatening nuclear war with the United States to defend its ally Syria, back in the '73 Yom Kippur War. (the other two times were 9/11 and the Cuban Missile Crisis)

Syria is also the only country, outside of the former USSR, where Russia still has a military base.

Russia still supports Assad... but admits he's losing, and they're planning evacuations for their citizens.

If Russia says the rebels may win, and is planning like the end might be near... then the end is probably near. Wish we had a timetable though on when "soon" is, but revolutions don't have timetables.